E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Erik S. Lesser / EPA
Ron Moon, co-owner of CJI Guns in Tucker, Ga., holds a pair of 100-bullet-capacity magazines for an AR15 assault style semi-automatic rifle on Wednesday.
Anticipating staunch resistance from gun-rights groups to any effort to ban assault-style rifles, some pro-gun control lawmakers are instead trying to leverage the national outrage over the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., to enact federal legislation outlawing high-capacity ammunition clips.
House Democrats, emboldened by President Barack Obama's call Wednesday for quick, "concrete” proposals to curb gun violence, are pushing House Republicans to quickly consider a ban on high-capacity clips.
The move follows the massacre of 20 schoolchildren and six adults on Dec. 14 at Sandy Hook Elementary school. The gunman, 20-year-old Adam Lanza carried three guns, primarily using a Bushmaster XM-15 — an AR-15/M4-type rifle -- which police said was fed by 30-round magazines. He also was armed with a Glock 10mm handgun and Sig Sauer 9mm handgun. Although authorities didn't reveal the models of those weapons, both of those handguns allow high-capacity clips -- including 15-round magazines for one model of 10mm handgun that's sold by Glock.
The bill’s list of co-sponsors this week grew from 113 to 135, according to a spokesman for Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., the measure’s author. In 1993, a man armed with a gun and several 15-round magazines shot and killed McCarthy’s husband, Dennis, aboard a Long Island, N.Y., commuter train. Five others also died and 25 were wounded.
“We've been here before,” McCarty said Wednesday on Capitol Hill. “All too often, we see these mass killings and yet all our lives go on. Everybody is asking: Is this time different? It is ... This time is different because there is so much anger.”
“We can get the job done,” added House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., one of the bill’s co-sponsors. In an interview Tuesday with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, Pelosi predicted: “Right away we could pass ... the ban on the assault magazine.”
Related:
NRA blames media, music and more for culture of violence
Obama demands 'concrete proposals' on gun violence by January
In the other house of Congress, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., is simultaneously pushing for a rapid vote on his almost identical proposal to outlaw the possession, import or sale of any ammunition clip that hold more than 10 rounds, saying: “These high-capacity magazines, which were used in Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Virginia Tech and so many other tragedies, were designed for one purpose only — to shoot and kill quickly.”
From 1994 to 2004, high-capacity ammunition magazines were illegal as part of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, but that provision lapsed when the legislation expired. Congressional Democrats have made several attempts to similar legislation barring possession of rapid-fire assault-style weapons since then, but those efforts have failed.
Legislators also have pushed legislation banning specific types of bullets – with one notable success: In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed legislation that outlawed armor-piercing "cop-killer" bullets.
But other recent ammunition-cutting proposals have failed to gain traction in Congress. Last summer, a bill filed Lautenberg and McCarthy sought to significantly curb the ability of Americans to buy unlimited amounts of ammunition via the Internet. That bill never made it beyond the Senate Judiciary Committee, a spokeswoman for Lautenberg said this week.
So in a country where the right to bear arms is held sacred, firearm foes are refining their pitch to focus on the delivery mechanism. One of their main talking points is asking why such high-capacity clips are necessary.
“I've been a hunter all my life, and there's no reason to have a magazine that holds 30 shells,” said Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif. “Call it what it is: an assault magazine. And we don't have any reason to assault anyone in our communities, in our neighborhoods. ... Why do you need 30 shells in a magazine?"
“Who needs these? The answer is sports shooters,” responds Mark Walters, co-author of "Lessons from Armed America" and host of a syndicated radio show “Armed American Radio." “For example, if you were target shooting or practicing for an upcoming (shooting competition), it’s nice not to have to change magazines on a regular continual basis."
In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the National Rifle Association held a news conference in Washington, D.C, on Friday and blamed the media and video games for cultivating a culture of violence.
What’s more, many ranchers use firearms like AR15s — manufactured to carry 30-round magazines — to protect their herds from coyotes and clear their land of prairie dogs, added George Hill, an employee at Basin Sports in Vernal, Utah.
The talk of banning “assault magazines” emanating from Washington appears to be driving sales of the high-capacity clips, according to Walters and Hill.
“I came in at 8 this morning and I have been non-stop on selling AR15s and ammo. Nonstop,” Hill said Wednesday afternoon. “Those (30-round clips) have been going out, and I’ve been selling those two, three, 10 at a time. Everybody’s worried about the politics behind it and that’s generating a lot of these sales. They’re worried about it being banned.
“I would be real happy to only sell Benelli goose-hunting guns and Browning deer rifles. And that’s normally what we sell this time of year. But the politics has super-heated the tactical market. Normally, I sell somebody 50 rounds, maybe 100 pounds. Instead, I’m selling them 500 or 1,000 rounds.”
While Walters and Hill each oppose the proposed ban on high-capacity clips in principle, they argued as well that such a crackdown won’t slow gun violence in this country.
“This is all symbolic legislation that will do nothing. Absolutely nothing. If I could say something different, I would admit that,” Walters said. “But the facts don’t bear that out. It’s just feel-good legislation being backed into a horrible event.”
They note that gun ownership has increased over the past decade, with the number of instant criminal background checks conducted by retailers required by federal law rising each year. In November alone, more than 2 million such point-of-sale investigations were performed nationally on people seeking to purchase firearms — the most in any single month since federal officials launched the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) in 1998, according to the FBI. By comparison, gun retailers and federal authorities completed 842,932 background checks in November 2003.
“There are millions of rounds of ammunition already in the public’s hands — high-capacity or standard-capacity magazines already in the public's hands,” Walters said. “If they pass this ban, in the days prior to the date (it goes into effect), stores will sell 10 years’ worth of these capacity magazines.
“But beyond that, it’s irrelevant. A seasoned, experienced firearms enthusiast, including myself, can change a magazine out, including a tactical reload, in under a second,” Walters said.
Moreover, such ammunition doesn’t degrade over time, he added.
“It’s a plastic magazine with a spring. Magpul (based in Erie, Colo.) makes the most popular 30-round magazines, PMAGs, which are selling for $13.99,” Walters said. “I have five of them being reserved at my store because they’re selling like crazy. I know I could keep them in my safe forever. I can open it in 20 years, take it out of the plastic bag, and if I want to use it, I can use it.”
Any federal ammo ban — or mandated purchase limits on certain clips or bullets — would simply create an “underground market,” Hill said. Today, scores of gun enthusiasts — including many hunters — make their own bullets as a hobby. They’re called “reloaders.”
“People have been making ammunition themselves since the 1880s. That’s something anybody is capable of doing with a little bit of know-how,” Hill said. "Those kinds of bans are like throwing a steak on the grill for like 10 seconds and calling it cooked. It just looks like it’s cooked but it’s not.
“You can reload. Or, you can order online and get stuff from outside the U.S. It’s too late for any of that,” Hill said. “And it never works.”
More content from NBCNews.com:
- NRA chief blames Hollywood, media for violence culture
- Church bells toll 26 times to honor Newtown victims
- Thousands of flights disrupted as storm hits Northeast
- 'Sandy Claus' hands out toys to kids in storm-hit areas
- Escaped robber who rappelled 20 stories is caught
- Nabbed: One of US Marshals' 15 most wanted captured in Florida
- Video: Scammers prey on Newtown families
Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Faceook
Leave a Comment:
Strange
why anyone would want to even consider more gun restrictions when they always
result in MORE violence and MORE crime. After the repeal of the useless Clinton
era gun bans we have had less mass shootings and less violent crime. More
Concealed Carry permits issued results in less violent crime. Yet guns are the
first thing people go after when there is a shooting. That is hypocritical for
people who drive motor vehicles to even suggest. Children are far more likely
to be killed by their teachers who drive to work then an armed concealed carry
permit holder walking to the same elementary school and sitting in a child’s
classroom.
People who drive cars are the real danger to children.
Don’t say you want schools and kids safe when you drive a car. More kids are killed in motor vehicle accidents then by all firearms related child deaths combined. Even if you just limit the statics to drunk driving more people are killed every year then by firearms. Yet I can guess how this same safety minded, “Child Protectors,” would react to me saying they can’t own or operate a motor vehicle because their neighbor got drunk and killed someone.
If you really want to reduce gun sales, stop electing liberals. Sales spike every time they take back the majority.
We said sir. But let's make sure we ban those high capacity mags. You can't reload very quickly with those 10 rd mags.
what happens out in the woods when some gee gaw is offloading his 100 round magazine at some deer with other people in the same woods?
The Gun Grabbing Liberals created the situation that led to the high body count in Newton. They made sure no Law Abiding Armed Citizen could have been anywhere near the victims when they needed help. The only armed person on campus was a Mother Murdering, Psycho, Thief, Criminal who wanted to kill as many kids as possible. The NeoLibs create the situation and then wait till some Psycho steps forward to use it, then they scream even louder how more Gun Control is the answer. All their success to date has been to ensure large concentrations of utterly unarmed casualties in waiting at know points with easy access for the Killers. Yeah, for the Gun Grabbers.... I hope they enjoyed their victory party as each of their "measures" helped to create this sad event. Let's all continue to follow their clearly flawed program. These incidents are increasing and it is due the successes of the Brady Bunch, Pelosi, Biden, Feinstein, Boxer, and all their ilk. I hope they are happy with the fruits of their success. The rest of us are sickened by it.
Great. Ban something that wasnt even used in this attack. I guess thats proof positive that this is a typical liberal/communist knee jerk reaction. These leftwing idiots really are desperate. I MEAN DESPERATE to do something like this. All its going to do is galvanize the gun owners and get many of them off the sofa and into the activist mode that has kept guns legal all these years.
Thanks to the Liberal/Communist for all their efforts, more gun owners than ever are buying ammunition in bulk. Something they didn't do before.
By the way, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting. Its more about defending America from its own government. Gotta be the best case of forward thinking in the history of world politics.
"A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
George Washington
Did you notice the words "SUFFICIENT ARMS AND AMMUNITION". What do you think that means??? It means that every citizen has the right to the same kind of rifles that the military use. The military uses select fire machine guns. I dont see them being sold in mass to Americans do you?
A hundred round magazines for "hunting rifles"? Have the deer started shooting back? A hundred round magazines for a "personal defense gun"? Have muggers and house burglars started to travel in regiments?
OBAMA:America's Eva Peron, the Perons were right wings dictators. Jeez read a book once in a while you're embarrassing yourself.
100 round magazines are a joke. They're unreliable. The Aurora shooter's 100 round magazine jammed practically right away. Want mass shooters to have a really reliable firearm? Give them a 10 round magazine.
Devil's Son, you actually might want to read a book, it was a national socialism and he was elected. I think you are the one that embarrassed yourself.
20 and 30 round magazines are used extensively by target shooters who wish to concentrate on firing accurately at the target rather than frequently having to reload. Statistically, that's almost all they are ever used for. To make laws to prevent .0000000001% of people from doing something simply does not work. The left is wholly disgraceful to exploit such a horrible tragedy to push an age old agenda.
Policeofficer,
Perhaps you can tell me what a typical 45 lbs 6-yearold looks like pumped with 11 slugs from a semi-automatic weapon?
Jim, you are so right! A 10 round mag is my choice any day, even a 30 round will let you down eventually. Also, let's not kid ourselves here; do we really think that some perp is going to hand in a 30 round mag when he shouldn't have a gun in the first place. The vital ingredient lacking is "discipline", surf the web and see the mother holding her toddler while he sucks on the business end of a Colt or the 6 year old that's swinging the Winchester around while his parents take the photo, who's fault is that? The gun's? And let's take a good look at those movies where everyone is firing off at least two weapons and nobody even gets scratched. America is the world's last bastion of freedom, let's keep it that way please, and let's apply our controls and disciplines where they belong.
Don't see alot of mass shootings in Texas.... but then again, we carry..........
As usual the gun control advocates can't even be bothered to use correct terminology.
While I can't give you that answer, as a former fire fighter I can tell you what a six-year-old looks like that has had the majority of her bones broken in a car crash (Cars are still available to anybody with cash and a driver's license.) and what a six-year-old looks like with her head crushed in by an alcoholic, psycho of a mother. Both of which are very legal. What's your point B707320C?
If you're expecting to limit the number of rounds one can fire quickly then you'll have to outlaw duct tape too.
Large capacity magazines can be effectively replicated by using small capacity magazines and duct tape creating "flipper" magazines. Two 30 round magazines properly taped together will allow for 60 rounds to be fired in about 75 seconds, while six 10 round magazines will allow for 60 rounds to be fired in about 85 seconds. So, there's the question for you...are you going to outlaw duct tape too???
This is how we did it in the military in the '80s. If someone wants to fire that many rounds rapidly, they will find a way to do it, restrictions or no restrictions.
you gun loving CONS need to get a job rather than spewing hate all day
@Obama=Eva Peron & Devil Son: Any of you read a book of Argentinian history by any chance? Peron won free elections (three times), regardless of beign called "dictator", and ruled Argentina with a fierce hand when the rich were ruling the country while middle class (didn't exist at the time) and the poor goes to toilet. Under his government labor laws were sanctiones (8 hours shift, vacation, a Christmas bonus, healthcare for EVERYBODY (he hasn't been called socialist or communist at the time)). Eva Peron was a fighter for the kids and women rights (women couldn't vote until 1952). She fought the BIG Corporations at the time that hated them for beign so close to the people. Like that, they were imperfect also, but tell me where can you find a "perfect politician". So grab the books and realize that the world doesn't ends in the Rio Grande....
I keep reading these post about sane law abiding citizens that should and do own these high power assault weapons with high capacity clips but I've seen these same sane law abiding citizens turn into insane criminal thugs after a bottle of Jack Daniels Whiskey, Case of beer, hit of acid, bath salts, synthetic marijuana and even Doctor prescribed medications but NOW THEY HAVE A HIGH CAPACITY ASSAULT WEAPON.
Without the assault weapon that insane person on drugs might be able to eat off one persons face (Miami) before be stopped, the drunk might being able to kill a family of 6 in a head on collision before being stopped and that over medicated soccer mom my being able to shoot 2 or 3 people before be stopped but that sometime sane - sometime insane person is able to take out 20 beautiful children and the caretakers in seconds with an assault rifle.
If we can't band them out right (that includes removing the ones already out there) then TAX them accordingly. Calculate the entire cost of all expenses nationwide (hospitals, police, ambulance, life flights, fire EMT, long term care, funerals, law suits, property damage, child care and education, etc.) associated with gun violence and tack that on to a very high user fee (privilege) per box of ammo.
Proud owner of a 1 Smith & Wesson 22A-1 pistol - 10 round clip (rabbits, critters and target)
1 Remington 12 ga - 3 shell with plug 5 without (peasant, dove, duck and your occasional beer can)
1 Browning .30-06 4+1 magazine (deer, coyotes, etc)
If I can't hit what I’m aiming at with these and needed something that fires 40 to 60 RPM (rounds per minute) then I need to take up golf and forget about it.
re-post
Rev "I've seen these same sane law abiding citizens turn into insane criminal thugs after a bottle of Jack Daniels Whiskey, Case of beer, hit of acid, bath salts, synthetic marijuana and even Doctor prescribed medications but NOW THEY HAVE A HIGH CAPACITY ASSAULT WEAPON."
*********************************************************************************
Drugs seems to be the creator of such problems
2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting PLEASE READ the amendments for once in you uneducated life.
Article [II.] A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
All this is already illegal...As you stated it is drugs first then stupidity.
So remove the drugs because that gun just sits there until SOMEONE uses it.
Dan-1018744, so you think National Socialism is left wing? Isn't Communism the National Socialists mortal enemy left wing? So the Aryan Nations group is left wing and the NAACP is left wing? So the Stormfront is left wing and ACLU is left wing. Please get help.
How dare common sense prevail in the Modern World, of which the Reichwing, American Taliban, NRA, revile?
Ban clips? Ban weapons? How about ban certain types of bullets!
If you own an AR 15 that takes .223 caliber ammo and can't get lt legally, then you're going to have a tough time finding it (unless you go to the black market). Make it a law that possessing this type of ordnance is illegal and, at least, we get to the heart of the matter rather than tiptoe around it.
Supporters of all government edicts use humanitarian
arguments to justify them.
Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify
government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy,
and personal liberty. This is on purpose to make it more difficult to
challenge. But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence.
Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use force with
bad intentions. The results are always negative.
Limiting clip size IS a way to go,
But first, ban ALL assault rifles from private ownership. And prevent anyone who was EVER diagnosed with a mental health issue causing a risk of violence to themselves or others from owning any gun of any kind for life. And if you live with that person, while you live with them, you give up that right too.
Now we can talk about clip size. AFTER those other two things are done.
Spoken like a true tolerance preaching, non-tolerant liberal that hates to see the true side of a story. Keep it up, you're proving our points.
Sounds like you're campaigning for a position in the O'Blama administration.
assault weapons ban is unlikely to happen.... they cant get the votes.... so you guys buying various basic ARs for $2400 are suckas....
the 10 round mag limit could happen... but it doesn't make much sense.... some 21 year old psycho will just throw 20 of them in a back pack and take 2 seconds for each change, killing 50 kids next year
likely Congress will pass the large magazine ban and do nothing else so they can get people off their backs... truly comprehensive background checks, posting a police officer at every school (which my city has done for years), working the violence in media angle, all that stuff will get ignored and the shootings will go on....
Congress will always take the most ineffective course .... count on it
"But first, ban ALL assault rifles from private ownership"
LOL, that horse has soo left the barn...
Whatever, non answers equal a whole lot of nothing so your welcome for someone trying to think for you since you aren't. Hell, I'll just take a break and get a dog to come up with a better answer than you.
@jimreaper. The above applies to you, too
I'm DEMANDING more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64G5FfG2Xpg&sns=fb
Steve 446003, perhaps you might recall Luby's Restaurant - where a man killed 23 people and injured another 20. Or the shooter at University of Texas who killed 16. Or the 13 killed at Fort Hood. Or the 7 killed and 7 more injured at a Fort Worth Baptist church. Or the....
30 round magazines for .223 rifles is not "high capacity" that is the standard size magazine across the board. anything less than that is reduced capacity. same with semiautomatic handguns. 15 round magazines for 9mm is standard across the board. in CA you are only allowed 10 rounds. 10 rounds of 9mm doesn't even fill the grip. they have to put a spacer in the bottom to block the space that you're not allowed to use.
"assault weapon" is a blanket term used by politicians to describe any gun that "looks like" military personnel might use it. example, a Rock River LAR-9 is a 9mm rifle thats built in the same pattern as an AR15. by political designation, this would be an "assault weapon" and thus they want to ban it. 9mm for those of you who are not familiar with firearms, is the most common SMALL caliber centerfire cartrige, and one of the most common types of ammunition for target shooting. now take the Sako TRG42 that fires .338 Lapua (which is a large caliber round with an effective kill range of over a mile, and light armor anti-materiel penetration power). in theory you could shoot down a helicopter with this rifle. but this is not an "assault weapon" and perfectly legal. the problem with gun laws is that they are written by people who dont know anything about guns.
Would sure like to stop reading about gun violence. Can someone please explain how gun control will stop the violence? States have been dipping their toes in gun control legislation for years now and it hasn't stopped gun violence. In my opinion the gun genie is already out of the bottle and no amount of new gun laws can put the genie back in.
Hey Sheepled @!$%#head, we have state militias. They're called THE NATIONAL GUARD and each state has one. So take that crap and replace it back in your hole. I don't want people such as yourself carrying anything with more power than a slingshot.
Yes, let's get rid of those high capacity mags. They are much too likely to jam and stop the killings. Use pre-loaded smaller capacity mags which can be changed quickly and are much less likely to jam.
Rev Wright,
America, as it was founded, wasn't suppose to have a National Guard or a standing Army. The militia was a state organized volunteer military. But, I suppose if we aren't going to maintain the country as it was meant to be, then we should void the Constitution and start from scratch.
@ Victoria..... Most legal gun owners do have a job.
All the hillbillies are out posting tonight having a stroke-fest. There must of been a sale on that deoderant with the testosterone in it!
What the hell is the difference between a fully-auto and a semi-auto weapon? It is of course how rapidly one can empty a magazine. A ten or eight round magazine is basically useless for a full auto weapon in that one would have to stop firing and reload in just a few seconds. A fully auto weapon requires a special license to possess in the United States but a semi-auto with a large capacity magazine navigates that restriction with ease. Therefore: Large capacity magazine should require the same federal license that allows fully auto weapons. Tape the limited capacity magazines together, I don't care, what were trying to establish here is a speed limit on this autobahn. For those that fully endorse the idea that "this is the most fun one can have with your cloths on!!", look upon it as a challenge of how quickly you can change magazines as you play with your AR-15's.
Kennedy was shot by a weapon with one round magazine, and the guy was able to get off 3 rounds.
In other words a bolt action for those of you who know nothing about guns. Once Adam forced entry into the school, no law was going to stop him from doing what he did, it was his mindset and his mission.
wje37fcsm...
Against defenseless people and children you have all the time in the world read comment above.
@Kevin, you are so, so wrong.
30 rounds is 30 rounds, which is more than 15 and 6. And if that's standard for a military weapon, that's fine. It shouldn't be owned by a person.
An assault rifle is an assault rifle, and not a hunting rifle.
I fire guns and I don't care if the standard assault rifle carries 30 rounds. It shouldn't be allowed in a civilian's hands. And if a person can't defend yourself with something less, that person needs to learn how to use a gun, not have 30 rounds, whether it is 'standard' or not.
Point is, you start somewhere and stop with the BS that guns aren't the problem. You want to tell me they aren't the only problem, I agree. You want to tell me we have a society that would probably rather have guns than sex, and say that is even a bigger problem, I might agree with that too. But if a person need more than 15 rounds in a clip, that person needs to learn how to reload. It won't stops shootings but there is proof that it will limit the damage. I'll cite two incidents: The Giffords shooting where reloading caused the gunman to be tackled, and the China school stabbings, where there were less children deaths because not even any gun was used whatsoever.
I believe in gun ownership and the right to it. I do not believe you need an assault rifle for any reason other than getting your rocks off. And sorry, no you don't get more of a right to that than protecting a kid and having a school with no guns in it.
Back to the article: The NRA stopped representing gun owners a long time ago and started representing themselves. If you don't like unions, you should hate the NRA
Here we are again, with politicians and stupid hippies doing the wrong thing for what they believe are the right reasons. High capacity magazines are a joke anyway and jam all the time. Obviously these morons have never tried using one. The pressure required from the spring to continually feed is way too strong, and causes the ammo to jam up, especially when trying to fire quickly. Hell, with a Glock 17 and a 15 round mag it STILL jams up now and then. Lower capacity mags are more reliable.
So basically, by their own stupid suggestions, they'd make shootings even more horrific because the guns would be less likely to foul up.
Also, here's yet another reminder - "assault weapons" is a generic term that the media and gun ban-happy politicians created. There's no such thing as a concretely defined "assault weapon". There are "assault rifles", which are fully-automatic and are not sold to the general public often, and when they are they cost from $15,000 to $20,000 dollars. Hardly at a price point your average mass-murdering suicidal nut-job will buy, completely ignoring the extensive background checks required. The last time true assault rifles were used in a crime that the media latched onto was way the @!$%# back in 1997 during the North Hollywood shootout. Those weren't even legal, either, and were modified into fully automatic weapons.
"Assault magazine"? What the @!$%#, they keep inventing new bull@!$%# terms to push their agenda. Wooo... scary "assault magazines". Yes, they are now the enemy!
Get your facts straight, sheeple.
Adam... You make sense about the mechanics of magazines and nomenclature. As I've said before, it is the gun owners, manufacturers, and their lobby that has to lead in this issue and it better not be for more and better guns. I don't want a gun in my house. You don't want me to have a gun in my house, just as I don't want my neighbors to have ready access to modern weaponry. I want the schools to be open and warm places to learn, not armed camps running lock down drills.
As far as nomenclature is concerned, you have a lot of different names for weapons... deer rifle... shot gun... I've even seen a huge large bore cannon/small boat combo that was designed to sneak up on a flock of ducks and blast dozens out of the sky with a single shot, what the hell do you call that? So what nomenclature is proper for a semi-auto light weight weapon that can fire 30 shots as fast as you can pull the trigger but "assault weapon?" This wasn't Governor Schwarzenegger and Governor Ventura fighting off an invisible alien hunter with a hand held Gatling gun, this was a 20 year old kid using his mama's arsenal out of a broken sense of reality. The gun culture of this country put those tools in his hands.
wje37fcsm
Well, I'm fine with the first part, you have a choice, (assuming you aren't restricted from possessing firearm.)
But when you want to limit your neighbors you are crossing a line that infringes on their choice. I see it not unlike, "I don't want other women to have abortions." or "I don't want gays to be able to marry." or "I want my God to be part of government." and well you're at it, how about "I don't want Blacks or Mexicans in my neighborhood."
Yeah, maybe you guessed it, I'm not a right winger. Personally, I see the right to own guns as a personal right just like the other stuff. Now all rights do have some reasonable limitations. Now they don't have a right to fire their guns in the air on the 4th of July and they don't have a right to use your garage as a backstop for target practice. Depending on the environment you live in and the zoning laws, they may not even have a right to fire it on their own property except in self defense. These are reasonable limitations. But your neighbors having guns does not infringe on your rights. Their possession of that weapon in no way threatens you. In reality it might even make you safer.
As long as your neighbors are not obviously behaving in some criminal manner, what they do and what they own is really none of your business.
It is not up to you to limit other people's freedoms. I understand how you would like your ideal dream world to look, but if you have to control other people to get it, you have crossed the line that goes beyond your personal freedoms.
1NewDay... You are right, my meaning was not clear.
Yes I realize that a lot of things I don't want are rights others enjoy or care to take advantage of. But the statement still stands, a legally armed neighbor at the very least gives me a sense of discomfort. I grew up in the Midwest around a gun culture..., a happy peaceful heavily armed town. The guns owned were exclusively used for hunting, very few handguns. I can't think of even one case of murder in the 22 years I lived there, yet the culture still made me nervous.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the 2nd amendment, especially it's symmetry with the first. What I don't appreciate is the intimidation many gun owners project as they flaunt their second amendment rights.
Mrs. Lanza had every right to her small arms arsenal. Her rational for it was apparently both of fear and fun. She apparently enjoyed her time at the gun range,... so did I while serving in Germany during the Kennedy Administration. She apparently loved her mentally bright but emotionally stunted youngest son who it is said she was trying to commit as a young adult to a mental facility. That supposedly was the impetus behind his break with reality and the rage that went unabated till he turned a gun upon himself. I think that classifies as a Shakespearean tragedy.
That is why I don't it is a good idea for my neighbors to be armed. Accidents occur because objects on separate trajectories sometimes meet in time and space. That is why we have traffic laws, regulations, and enforcement and why we need to slow things down on our second amendment autobahn.
We've seen this movie: gun_toting tea-baggers!
I already have my long clips and everyone else is buying more with the media hype. Focus on the mental health and keeping criminals from getting guns. This legislation would drop killings from 12 to 6 people on an average rampage. Is that your purpose here?? Do you feel half the people killed is a good result? Stupid politics and no common sense.
... half the people killed is a good idea? I think those 6 people not killed would think it"s a good idea!
Exactly my point Luke, reducing clips will not change deaths. Any death is bad, people need to change and there needs to be more security for schools meaning armed guards.
we need to BAN all guns in america, you people are crazy. Your overzellit need for killing machines make we wonder how sain you are. Are any of you really listening to what your saying?
VICTORIA....You are a whack job that can't even spell...
Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Supporters of all government edicts use humanitarian
arguments to justify them.
Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify
government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy,
and personal liberty. This is on purpose to make it more difficult to
challenge. But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence.
Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use force with
bad intentions. The results are always negative.
Victoria= Hitler took away all guns and we ended up with WWII where over 6 million jews and undesirables were murdered. Lets ban violent media first and start teaching respect for each other before banning more guns.
I play all sorts of violent video games and consume all sorts of media with violence in them. Its good fun without contradicting your morals and no guilt at all. I own 3 firearms myself and do not whatsoever have to urge to go out and shoot someone. Although I do like to go out and shoot cans with them, its good fun.
But how can this be possible? Well, its not real.......
@victoria - yes that will solve all our problems. because if theres anything that we can be sure of, its that criminals and sociopaths that have complete disregard for the law by murdering, raping, and stealing, they will totally stop doing all that because guns are against the law.
in all seriousness, you clearly do not understand the mind of the criminal. while you might be a law abiding citizen who wont buy a gun because its against the law, what exactly does that mean to someone who doesn't give a damn what the law says? guns are now allowed within a 100 yards of schools. thats a law. that law sure prevented all those school shootings didnt it?
Let me lay it out, Victoria, you ban guns and civil war breaks out. Many thousands to millions get killed. Now, how does that ban work out for you? OK, now lets say that the fed stops the rebellion, and succeeds in getting control of numerous firearms. Now there is a black market for weapons. Crime rates will soar because the bad guys are gonna still have guns but not the good guys. Result? Even fewer good guys. You then create very stiff penalties for possession of firearms. Then you have a big spike in police deaths, because anyone packing will then kill the cops trying to apprehend them. So, I'm trying to figure out how a gun ban prevents killings.
yes, people do need to change. the media's ability to envision, shape, instill, recall and exploit the imagination's obsessions and fears by sensationalizing the use of guns and ammo of the type in question are, no doubt, a hint of the profit principle that alone fuels the NRA's lobbying principle. Both groups feed off of each other, use their consumer's weaknesses to justify their consumer's right to escalate vigilantism and home-terrorism, and ensure the easy availability of their addictive products. put aside your ammo, and your violent games and movies, and start the process of recovery.
GUN CONTROL is a dangerous
road as HISTORY SHOWS
Gun control advocates
are naive about AUTHORITARIANISM.
AUTHORITARIANISM is easily
implemented with an unarmed civil population… THE RED COATS ARE COMING
GUN Control by King George
FORCED the writing of the Declaration of Independence
In early American
colonial times, this right to bear arms was carried on by the English colonists
who needed arms to defend their property from the Native Americans. Families
were often alone on the frontier and they needed to be able to defend
themselves.
Only you can protect
yourself!
Even if there had been
an army, it would have taken too long for it to arrive in the event of trouble.
Many of the early colonial constitutions included a mention of the right to
bear arms for defensive purposes for this very reason.
The dangers of having a
Standing Army
Standing armies were
very unpopular to the colonists and to many Europeans because Europe had seen
many armies come to power that ended up ruling over the people. Instead of
having standing armies, the colonists would train together for purposes of
local defense, using their own arms during their training and in actual
military events. These local groups were called "militia" and are
somewhat equivalent to our National Guard today.
The Federal Government
and the United Nations want your guns so you can be sheeple instead of people
with arms to fight back.
During the Revolutionary
War era, the British recognized the colonists would use their weapons to
defend themselves, so they made efforts to confiscate as many weapons as they
could. If you recall, this was the primary instigation of the Battles of
Lexington and Concord, the first battles of the Revolution. These battles erupted
when the British were trying to capture the colonists' weapons and ammunition
stores at Concord.
It would probably help if they discussed "magazines". Discussing "clips" does them no good as there are no new weapons which use them. Another example of if people knew what they were talking about, they could have an intelligent discussion.
Considering the fact that gun sales were already through the roof due to the sleaze bag buying his re-election, gun sales have now hit astronomical levels. The NRA, an organization with something like 4 million members is experiencing a membership increase rate of around 8,000 new members a day, each and every day.
Despite what the media and the gun grabber bunch would have you believe, it is actually they that are in the minority in this country and can only promote their agenda through emotion and mis-information. Reason and logic are their enemies.
Now the Bollywood supporters for gun control are hitting the Liberal media. Wait a minute, there is another "violent" movie about to be released starring these same folks.
And these are the same multi-millionaires calling for taxing the rich.
Hypocrites.
Yep, that "reason and logic" completely goes over the Progressive's heads.
Personally, I'd like to see it made as easy as possible to buy handguns/magazines with a 20 round capacity or less and hunting rifles. All you should have to do is show you've passed the safety course. If you can do that, there should be zero restrictions on how many guns/mags/rounds you can buy. For the higher capacity stuff, military, and automatic weapons, a simple check to see if you've ever spent time in a mental hospital or been under the care of a mental health professional should be required. Would take all of two minutes; pass and you're clear to buy.
More gun laws will not deter violent mental cases from finding a way to get a gun, and it certainly will not deter criminals. Look at the bull$hit Feinstein is proposing: basically ban any gun or magazine with more than a 10 round capacity. Does she honestly think that she's giving a law abiding citizen the advantage when some criminal is looking to do damage to them, their family or property? Maybe she thinks that if Americans just squat like bitches, no one will hurt them. Newtown is a hard lesson in what happens when you squat. How many death certificates will we see with "Cause of Death: Dianne Feinstein"?
Somebody is friggin lying, if what NBC news reported is true then there is a cover up about which weapons this kid used. They reported that the AR15 was found in his car, how can it be possible for him to have used this weapon and the return it back to his car and go back into the school. Unless he parked right up to the door it would seem that the cops would have been there by then. I want the coroners report to tell everyone what weapon was used. If it was the pistols the all this calling for the ban of these rifles are bogus.
Listen!!! I own a gun shop and right now I will not sell you nothing!!! You cant controle your cell phone text, so you are stupid and do not have a brain. Maybe when you grow up down the line, I may sell you a gun. The assult wepons ban did not work before, and will not work now! The mag. cap just means you have to reload more. I am sick and tired of you people that think you know about guns and opening your big hole with things that do not address the real problems. So Buy all of the things that are going to be banned and make everyone a lot of money. PANIC would you!!!
I agree with Malcontented... so a certain degree. He's right about banning guns. It just won't work. People either already have these massive weapons and magazines - along with the ammo, or they'll get them right before a ban goes into place. (And who knows... it probably would start another war if banned).
Personally, I'd love to see guns taken away from everyone, but I can't rectify that with the idea of me being the only one to save myself if the need arises - which is why I own my own gun. It's an older one, each clip holds 10 rounds I believe. It's only a .22, but with hollow-point bullets and me letting them fly at someone trying to hurt my family, it'll get the job done. I'm a sharp-shooter and have no issue with not hitting anything I aim at, so I'm confident I'll kill any bastard who breaks into my home to hurt my family. I don't have a permit to carry, as my gun is too large to put anywhere in hiding anyway, although I do see the point of having a permit - for the incidences of these violent attacks we're discussing, hopefully someone good could shoot and kill the shooter before he does more damage. And, to make sure the person who does shoot and/or kill the shooter NOT to get prosecuted but be hailed as a hero instead!
Even if guns are successfully banned, that's not going to stop these incidences of violence. Look at China for instance. No one is allowed to have a gun, but there's still a whole lot of violence there by using knives instead. I'm also talking about schools and day cares where these men have walked in and just started stabbing staff and kids alike. It's happened many times there, and most of them were in school-type settings with kids involved. Where are they gonna run to in a daycare to get away? Not many places to go, from experience with my own daughter I can recall how closed in they are.
Anything can be used as a weapon, it's the people we need to worry about, but obviously how are you supposed to know when one is ready or has already snapped? You don't, and probably never will.
Gun violence will prevail in this country, and if the guns go away, then knives will replace them or some other type of weapon people will create if they need to. We just need to keep an eye out for those loners who have psych problems and not let them fall thru the cracks. That's the issue at hand, along with the banning of major magazine clips too. There's just no need to have a gun that can fire that many bullets at one time at anything. Like, are you really going to shoot a buck with 30 rounds of automatic ammo? Doesn't that sort of defeat the entire purpose of hunting and being a good shooter? Killing with one shot, maybe two, and you're good to go. Assassinating animals like that is just wrong and I've never heard of anyone doing so.
Just my opinion.
@rodentwarrior:
How exactly would you know if anyone had been under the care of a mental health professional in their past?
Lets just say a grown adult goes into a gun shop and purchases a handgun of any kind. They fill out the paperwork and get a background check, but there's absolutely no way that one, they'll ever admit to seeing a mental health person, or two, that it will show up in a background check unless the police were involved. If this grown adult buys the gun, but has had mental issues as a teenager and saw someone for it, does that mean they should be banned from owning a weapon, assuming it's for protection?
What you said just doesn't make any sense, and people lie all the time and will most likely never admit to having any kind of problem as long as it won't show up on a background check.
We would be better off banning "gun control activists" or at least giving them lobotomies. There are literally hundreds of thousands of pages of reports, research endeavors, Department of Justice statistics, assessments by criminology experts and thousands upon thousands of incidents each year that all but verify that banning high-capacity magazines as well as the weapons that use them will DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to reduce violent crime and mass murders. In fact, banning magazines and weapons will increase the odds of more mass killings and violent crime. Not BS - just fact, yet the morons, and that's what they and YOU are if you don't know the data and refuse to educate yourselves, use every opportunity to try and get the public to swallow more crap about gun control. Why is it that almost all mass killings are in "gun free zones", and why is it that so many people are killed? The reason is that mass killers are usually cowards that will NOT try their killing sprees in a place where they might get blown away immediately if someone is armed and present. It is a fact that the average number of people killed before police arrive is 14, and the average number of those killed if someone with a firearm is present is 2.5. WHY - because the murdering dip-sh_ts fantasy XBOX killer world gets immediately shattered when someone shoots back and they THEN kill themselves instead of taking their time and killing little kids. Again - FACT! So before you people keep running off at the mouth about that which you don't know anything about, please get some education - or a lobotomy! Enough said. PS: Disabled Vet - From one disabled vet to another. If you would like to see ALL guns banned then you apparently do not understand the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and have never served in a land, like I have, where the people were slaughtered because they did NOT have the means to resist the despots that did the killing. Do yourself a favor, read the Bill of Rights, for foreign lands have not cornered the market on those that would create a defenseless public agains the government. You only have to go East of the Potomac to find hundreds of politicians that would love to turn us into Stalin era citizens.
Easy solution.
Everyone afraid of guns. stay in your home. If you fear guns this is really the only solution. There is no way guns will ever be outlawed in this country. Police, criminals, hunters all have guns and none are giving theirs up.
So if you fear guns...stay indoors at all time. Avoid banks where a security guard may be packing. Avoid sporting event, where police are packing. Avoid airports...yep, police packing. Avoid the woods, where hunters are packing. Avoid malls- again security guards. Avoid the shooting range. Avoid college campuses, avoid subways, avoid life in general as you cannot avoid guns in this country. Nor should you, it is a constitutional right to own a gun...any gun. Long live freedom.
What utter nonsense! YOU are the one who fears guns! You are the one who is afraid to live without an arsenal. And you call that freedom???
I'm not going to be intimidated by gun nuts. Just go ahead and shoot me. Fire at will. Spend the rest of your life rotting in prison, while I lie peacefully dead, no longer at the mercy of your madness.
Banning ammunition is an answer to this insanity. I hope it goes through.
The fact remains that if he would have had smaller clips he would have had to taken a 2 second pause to reload. During that time, one of those 6 year olds could have tackled and restrained him and prevented the loss of more life.
Not a fact. Just a conjecture on your part. Why do you feel the need to LIE to try to make your point?
Lie?! No, just a little sarcasim to point out that laws like this would not have in anyway changed the outcome of this tragidy. Passing a law as a ressponse to a tragidy that would not have changed the Outcome tragidy is pointless.
Question: Since we no longer have a "militia," is the 2nd Amendment still valid?
The Founding Fathers were tired of watching English Kings use the mighty British Army to enforce civil law and preferred that America have a volunteer militia rather than a standing army. ("HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures." -- The Declaration of Independence) Given the outcome of the Revolutionary War, little reason then existed to doubt the effectiveness of a civilian militia.
The fact that early America's citizen militia has been effectively replaced by a professional military in no way diminishes or alters the meaning of the effective words in the 2nd Amendment which are, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa062799.htm
Contrary to this, we, the people, have the right to bear arms and form a militia. We still need to protect ourselves from a hostile takeover. We have the right to overthrow the government if the need arises. However, in order to do this, we must talk about the government and this now is illegal because 7 years after the passage of the Bill of Right, the government passed the Sedition Act of 1798 which makes it a crime to say or write anything "false, scandalous, and malicious" against the government. This means, to the people, that the government cannot exercise "prior restraint" it can legal punish the speaker or writer afterwards.
Sedition means a revolt or an incitement to revolt against established authority, usually in the form of treason of defamation against the government.
We may have the "right to bear arms" but it is against the law to speak against the government so the right to bearing arms to protect the people from the government has been taken from us.
More knee jerk reactions from the leftist liberal anti gunner crowd!
Supporters of all government edicts use humanitarian
arguments to justify them.
Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify
government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy,
and personal liberty. This is on purpose to make it more difficult to
challenge. But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence.
Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use force with
bad intentions. The results are always negative.
BS! I am what you people would call a liberal. I carry a Ruger 9mm LC9. I carry ir everywhere I go. I have no use for Assault weapons or pseudo Assault weapons. If they are to exist in our society, to satisfy their over-aged adolescent desire to play Army, they should be limited to a 10 round clip. This should provide a thrill for the adult/adolescent crowd while preventing the possibility of massacres like the one in Newtown Connecticut. The more that an assailant has to change out magazines, the less time he has to kill innocents before Law Enforcement takes him out.
Dennis from Mesa
Apparently you need to practice with that 9 more often if you think a ban on high capacity magazines is going to do jack @!$%#. I can swap magazines out in less than 2 seconds. Apparently people like you seem to think a person has to sit down and carefully remove the magazine, give the gun a quick inspection, brew a cup of coffee, take a half dozen sips, and then slowly insert a new magazine before resuming fire.
You gun idiots can go @!$%# yourselves. Selfish bastards. I hope yours are the next kids - a terrible thing to hope but you are hoping for civil war, right? Scumbags.
Guitarma, you are right. That is a terrible thing to wish on somebody. It is also pathetic and sick! If you wish that on anybody than the scumbag is you. Get some psychiatric help ASAP as you need it badly!
The anti gunner crowd... oh, you mean those people who are tired of this gun insanity? Those of us who wish to go about our day without your guns in our faces?
Count me in with the anti gunners then.
We have to be reasonable about this issue. Americans are allowed to bear arms. Rifles for hunting, shotguns for home protection and handguns for personal protection need to be allowed to the citizenry.
AR-15 and such need not be allowed if citizens retain the right to bear the former items on the list.
As far as the handgun goes, the government should issue a single shot handgun to every citizen who wants it. The ammunition for the issued gun should be of a unique caliber. The manufacture of handgun ammunition of any other caliber should be outlawed for civilian use or ownership.
Kaybeetoys
The problem with people like you is, that in your rabid anti-gun philosophy, you find it convenient to lump all gun owners into the same category, i.e crazed gun toting maniacs. You refuse to accept the idea that there are in fact responsible and safe gun owners like myself who have had the proper training in gun safety and keep out firearms locked up and out of the hands of our children. I sincerely pray that you are never placed into a situation where your life is in dire jeopardy from someone out to cause you and or someone in your family great bodily injury or death, and you not have the means to defend them or yourself or them!
Paul, your comment sounds so ludicrous and unreasonable, it does not even bear respondidng to!
This reporter still does not know the difference between clips and magazines. Ban all the 'clips' you want, because clips were used during WWII to help load ammunition into rifles that had no magazines. Clips are no longer used, except during period target matches. Again, learn the terminology, because using the wrong term just shows you don't even know what you are talking about!
Call it what you want, the basic message is it holds to many rounds of ammo !! Did you get that btb ?
Waylon. What the hell difference does it make, the guy just carries more magazines with him, it only takes 2-3 seconds to change a magazine. SO whats your point?
Wow, I have voted for Obama twice and I am a 55 year old white man making 6 figures but I also have had guns since I was 8. 12 I started hunting I have also reloaded as I shot trap for quite a while. I have never had this type of gun though and I am really thinking of buying one or two. It is all your doing, creating demand and as much as the tea party and the racists within and the religious taliban annoy me, so does the left, you really aren't much different than the tea party. Calling people names, the arrogance that you think you are so right, and instead of shoving your religion down my throat you want to shove your political beliefs. So I guess you can call me names and jump up and down but you are not going to get anything passed. On some of the societal and social issues I will be there but not this.
@dan
"It is all your doing, creating demand and as much as the tea party and the racists within and the religious taliban annoy me, so does the left, you really aren't much different than the tea party. Calling people names, the arrogance that you think you are so right,"
Yeah, Calling people names, the arrogance that you think you are so right.
Look in the mirror, bigot.
Less ammo in the magazine means better feed to bolt and less jamming.
10 round magazine jam less
If I want 30 rounds DUCT TAPE 3 MAGAZINES TOGETHER.
We did this all the time in the military...
Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Supporters of all government edicts use humanitarian
arguments to justify them.
Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify
government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy,
and personal liberty. This is on purpose to make it more difficult to
challenge. But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence.
Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use force with
bad intentions. The results are always negative.
This obsession over "clips" vs. "magazines" isn't scoring anyone any points. Many experienced shooters don't know the difference between these terms, so to chastise non-shooters for confusing them is just being an @!$%#. That doesn't help our cause. Please, everyone, drop it!
How many is too many?
11 is too many. Any firearm that can hold more than that should be classified as an assault weapon.
waylon-1789912
Terminology is very important. People trying to change Constitutional RIGHTS have no business even THINKING about touching it if they don't understand the fundamental aspects of the right they're trying to infringe upon. It's very telling that so many people have no clue what they are talking about in this gigantic cluster-@!$%# of an issue.
This whole situation basically boils down to fear, emotional reaction, and impotent proposals which would amount to nothing more than feel-good changes for pacifist hippie jackasses that restrict American's Constitutional rights. If you're so scared of @!$%# you don't understand, get the @!$%# out of the country and go move somewhere guns are banned. Mexico is pretty close, I hear the gun bans are working fantastically down there. Have fun with that.
It's not Obama - it's the people who are demanding this change. People died so you can have your rights - but this "right" has to change - nobody has the right to anything that costs others their lives so consistently. Over 100 people have died in the US since the massacre of these innocent children. It stops now.
Guitarma wrote that nobody has the right to anything that costs others their lives consistly. So we eliminate cars? And who is going to eliminate my rights? Which other amendment would Guitarma like to eliminate for me? The first, the fifth? Please read the last four words of the second amendment.
I didn't know they opened the doors to the asylum! Apparently you GUN NUTS think that;
more words = more convincing.
Actually: Succinct is right, long is wrong!
The problem with your arguments is that they all lack basic logic. You all equate gun control with Hitler. No one buys that crock of sh it. No one! You're dealing with intelligent Americans here not some uneducated morons from a third world country.
VICTORIA is the only one with any sense that posted here. The only one. I KNOW YOU THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. Thats the problem.
You can't even see how wrong you are. We have several law enforcement organizations that would prevent our government from seizing control of this country without the explicit consent of the of democratic process. Our military would revolt against any politician that mutinied against the people.
Every one of you actually picture yourselves fighting in streets against some armed force sent out to "take control" of our country. THAT'S INSANE!
You're focking nuts!!
I do like guns, we should be able to protect ourselves, but think you don't need 30+ rounds to hunt or protect your home with unless your just a really bad shot and in that case, you should not own one. If you limit the number of rounds in a clip, then people are just going to buy more clips. If guns are banned what next? Bows and arrows? Knives? gas and matches? rocks and leather? Weapons have been a thing of human kind for thousands of years, they will never go away. Just because someone passes a background check today, does not mean that something might happen in there life that will make them snap in 5 years. Just remember, the British were not fought off by using words, it was guns.
"I do like guns, we should be able to protect ourselves, but think you don't need 30+ rounds to hunt or protect your home with unless your just a really bad shot and in that case, you should not own one. "
You don't need 30 rounds to defend yourself and your family ... until you DO need 30 rounds. That's the way it goes.
Land owners -- for examples, farmers, ranchers on the border with Mexico -- may well need a rifle and 30+ rounds for protection while out and about on their property.
Why should you be the one to decide what I need? Do you want the government to decide what I need? I really dont want to be a part of something where somebody else decides what I need.
Its not about protecting yourself or your home or hunting, Its about defending this country from a renegade government who has superior weapons. Washington knew this day would come:
"A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
George Washington
The words "Sufficient Arms" mean guns equal to the task. Whatever guns the government has the people should have. Its a deterrent to an abusive government.
Ask yourself what happened after the same knee jerk reaction to a shooting in Australia? They banned guns, now MURDER, ARMED ROBBERY, RAPE IS UP MORE THAN 400%.
Do you really know what your asking? Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. More laws, less liberty, its pretty simple.
If guns are banned, next you move to explosives I'm sure. It's far to easy to look up online and figure out how to make very, very effective bombs.
I'm ok with high capacity magazines being restricted. Consider 10 round max compared to 30. If a nut decides to go off and kill people, that's 40 less bullets with two magazines he no longer has at his disposal.
There will be screwed up people who just want to hurt people, banning guns will not stop that, and that is a fact.
If guns are banned what next? Knives?
Do you know that the same day as the Newtown massacre a crazy in China also attacked a school filled with children. Proving your point he used a knife. The main difference in outcome was that no one died in the China incident.
So instead of carrying 2 magazines, he carries 6. Same weight, same bulk, and 1-second to swap each one out while shooting without ever taking the sights off target. Would have zero effect.
We need 30 a round magazine in our pistol grip, detachable magazine, semi-automatic rifle so that we can have a chance of defending ourselves from a sociopath with a stolen assault rifle and two 30 round magazines.
My pistol grip, detachable magazine, semi-automatic rifle isn't an "assault rifle" because I will never assault anyone with it.
If a psycho assaults you using a pen as a weapon, his pen is an "assault weapon". If you ban and confiscate his pen, his screwdriver could become his "assault weapon".
So why not ban all interchangeable magazines and only allow guns that you have to load one bullet at a time into a fixed magazine that holds only 8 bullets?
Just BAN criminals...... solves the issue at the root.............
Pass legislation that forces anyone planning mass-murder to turn themselves in at the local police station..... it's that simple............
Hey getmadstaymad, here are the stats:
Number of homicides by firearms US: 9,960 Australia: 30
Assault deaths per 100,000 population US: 5.7 Australia: 1
Among the O.E.C.D Countries that the World Bank groups as "high income," America has the highest gun homicide rate, the highest number of guns per capita and the highest rate of deaths due to assault. In fact America has more homicides by gun than all of the other high-income countries combined.
Charles Blow wrote this in the New York Times 12/19/2012
Who can possible say our gun laws do not make a difference when we have so many other countries that seem to control guns and homicides. We are turning into a third world country on the back of the damn 2nd A. Who are we as a Nation? That is the question to ask as our babies are being killed by GUNS.
Less ammo in the magazine means better feed to bolt and less jamming.
10 round magazine jam less
If I want 30 rounds DUCT TAPE 3 MAGAZINES TOGETHER.
We did this all the time in the military...
Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Supporters of all government edicts use humanitarian
arguments to justify them.
Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify
government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign policy,
and personal liberty. This is on purpose to make it more difficult to
challenge. But, initiating violence for humanitarian reasons is still violence.
Good intentions are no excuse and are just as harmful as when people use force with
bad intentions. The results are always negative.
But, Australia takes its orders from the United Nations just like Canada when it comes to gun control. The fee for even farmers to own and protect their livelihood is astronomical. My aunt lives there. And has guns without permission. I would too.
mgm -- I see what you're saying, that we obviously have way too many gun-related deaths. Is your solution to ban guns altogether?
None of what is being discussed (large magazines, assault weapon ban, etc.) will even make a dent in that. It will only stop the infrequent event like we just saw in Newtown. I own a rifle for target shooting, and I have no problem with enacting those bans. I can stop and reload after 10 shots, which I already do here in CA.
A few months back, I was watching news video of a shooting in Oakland, in which a small child was hit. As the shooter drove by and fired, the most amazing thing to me was how many bystanders pulled guns and started shooting back. How many of those guns do you think were legally obtained? NOTHING we are discussing, save an all-out ban, is going to have any impact on our murder rate. These murders mostly happen one person at a time.
"Number of homicides by firearms US: 9,960 Australia: 30"
Conveniently left off the fact that the average homicide rate in Australia is about 280 per year. So in a country where firearms are restricted, but still available firearms only account for ~10% of homicides. When you account for the fact that Australia has a population that is about 6.7% of the US and has a far different population density using them as a comparison is even less reasonable. It should also be noted that since the expiration of the "Assault Weapons Ban" the murder rate in the US has been plummeting. Down from 17,309 in 2006 to 14,748 in 2010. While it would be foolish to say that the homicide rate is falling BECAUSE of the passing of the AWB, it is hardly the "blood in the streets" that the anti-gun crowd boasted would occur if the AWB was not renewed. And conveniently ignoring the fact that of the hundreds of millions of firearms and tens of millions of lawful owners in the US only about 12,000 of them are used in homicides a year (or about 0.0000387%) is even more disingenuous.
Anooo2-- Wait a second! First it's one of you gun nuts, "getmadstaymad" cites Australia as an example of a country with gun control that has a high gun murder rate.
"Ask yourself what happened after the same knee jerk reaction to a shooting in Australia? They banned guns, now MURDER, ARMED ROBBERY, RAPE IS UP MORE THAN 400%."
That's proven to be a LIE (as usual coming from a gun nut)!
Now you're trying to make several special qualifications for your statement. Bullsh t! Just shut up!
You gun nuts simply lie to try to support your weak arguments. It doesn't work because the truth is the truth and you can't recreate the truth to make it work how you want it to.
Australia has low rate of gun homicides, period. Your moronic pro-gun advocate buddy boy cited that fact as a fallacy. HE'S LYING LIKE ALL OF YOU!
GUNS KILL, that's why they're made. If they didn't you wouldn't buy them.
The SECOND AMENDMENT is not intended to grant rights to individuals. That's why it says: "MILITIA" and the words "WELL ORGANIZED"
But gun nuts are horny for those guns. They get sexually aroused/excited by a simple gun. SICK, SICK, SICK! BAN the gun nut AND the gun.
FINALLY. the media reports on one possible solution. you NRA wack jobs can have all the guns you want-just no ammo for them.
Catherine, it's hard to tell if you are unaware of history, a troll, or an idiot. Pass all the laws you want and it won't take one gun out of any criminal's hands. It won't stop the psychopaths either. What it will do is make it easier for opinionated fools to dictate their twisted perspectives on the rest of us.
Catherine, I suppose you wish this single mother, home alone with her infant daughter after her husband's recent death, hadn't had any guns -- nor any ammunition for them -- when a knife-wielding man crashed through her front door.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/justice/oklahoma-intruder-shooting/index.html
Catherine,
I'm a handloader and have enough reloading supplies to last until doomsday (and that ain't today). I can easily load 1000 rounds in a night. Let Barry ban all the bullets he wants. This will have no impact on me whatsoever.
Why do you have to label somebody who supports the NRA a whack job? These people differ from your opinion but that does not make them a whack job, only somebody with a different opinion. You make your opinion less worthwhile when you use language like that.
Well stated Quiet professional, Chuckzul and Padukie! Reloading equipment is great! and you can go across the border to other states to buy ammo (those of us facing a permit only in Ca). These silly little laws won't stop anyone, especially the criminals (hence the word "criminal"). Catherine, I suggest you educate yourself about guns, gun laws and other countries that have had their gun rights taken away. I think you will find that us "whack jobs" can handle ourselves just fine. I would like you to tell this 12 year old your views and how she should be raped or murdered because she wouldn't be allowed to have guns or ammo. She might have a different perspective than you.
Just want you to know that by saying"NRA whack job" you are absolutely no different than the most right wing republican rather it be the christian taliban or tea party klan. You have the answer and anyone who disagrees is stupid. You just damage your cause.
Catherine,
I appreciate your frustration with the media and with how the words spoken by anyone can be interpreted to misrepresent the speakers/author's intent. I am sure my words here may also suffer the same fate.
I am hoping that someone could assist me in understanding how banning high capacity magazines (the number that is considered "high" depends on one's perspective) will prevent someone from shooting an equal number of people.
I am a competition shooter, a hunter, and I enjoy shooting for fun. I have spent more time with a gun in my hands than I have with a pen/pencil throughout my life, and I have fired more rounds than some military platoons do in a year. I usually use magazines in my pistols and some of my rifles that carry 10 rounds and less in each magazine, however I am able to change magazines while shooting, giving the same effect as a 30 or 100 round magazine. I am not saying this to brag, rather to point out that this skill is something that is first learned by anyone who wants to accurately put a lot of lead down range on a dozen or more targets in the shortest period of time. This skill can be learned by anyone who has an afternoon free, the ambition to try, and the desire to learn.
I am likely remembering incorrectly, but didn't the VT "coward" (some say shooter, I say "coward") have many magazines in his backpack for use throughout his endeavor? The idea of having and using larger magazines is purely a convenience intended for those with a legitimate and legal use.
Thank you in advance to anyone for helping me understand.
You mean like CHICAGO.... Barry's home town...... look at how well gun laws are working there....
Then compare Texas...... we shoot criminals..........
I have been saying that for years!
Catherine...YOU are the whack job that can't even spell....
Less ammo in the magazine means better feed to bolt and less jamming.
10 round magazine jam less
If I want 30 rounds DUCT TAPE 3 MAGAZINES TOGETHER.
We did this all the time in the military...
Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Ahhh, name calling. The mark of a thoughtful, well reasoned and persuasive argument.
Look to your leders NRA. They are whak jobs and you accept them. You are whackos.
Quiet Professional
What an amazing story! I love how the accomplice is being charged with murder because his criminal buddy wound up being shot and killed. That's some serious @!$%#ing brutal justice right there.
The US military does this all the time.
i spent 21 years in THE UNITED STATES ARMY starting in 1983 and yes i have went into firefights with two 30 round mags taped togather using the military 100 mile an hour tape (duct tape) i also shot competative shoots while in the army and can tell you i could change mags in less than 2 seconds and never take my eyes off the target, if they do get this ban through what will be next shotguns that hold 5 rounds with the plug out,oh wait 5 rounds of 000 buckshot 5 or 6 people killed with each round( 25 TO 30 PEOPLE DEAD BEFORE RELOADING ) I WORRY ABOUT OUR OWN GOVERNMENT RUNNING OVER US THAN I DO ABOUT SOME OTHER GOVERNMENT TRYING TO INVADE BECAUSE THEY KNOW EVERY AMERICAN WITH A GUN WILL SHOOT BACK
I have never seen so many TOTALLY INSANE COMMENTS ANY WHERE IN MY ENTIRE LIFE. And you're the people that want unlimited access to unlimited numbers of guns and ammunition.
My God you people are both CRAZY and Out of Control! Do you get that???
DO YOU??
We need to do more than ban high-cap magazines. We need to ban crazy people like you that are commenting from TOUCHING FIREARMS!
You people are sick, SICK!
When clinton was president california introduced a "assault weapons ban". They removed the bayonet lug and the pistol grip.....so since then there have been no mass bayonet attacks and we all know without a pistol grip the rifle wont shoot straight...huh. All cosmetic changes. Because the "assault type" rifles they are speaking about are simply generic semi-auto feeding rifles cosmetically dressed to resemble what the military uses. They have no selectors for changing rates of fire. The hilarious part is I can still legally purchase full-auto military rifles and suppresors at will..legally with ATF approval,
More liberal talk about changing something that is not the real problem and manufacturing an issue for them to address with NO change. Focus on the criminals IDIOTS.
Also don't forget the Colombine School Shooting happened while their was already an Assault Weapons Ban in effect. That's somthing the media doens't want to mention. Assault Weapons Ban was instituted from 1994-2004 and Colombine happened 1999 so now what people? Still think more laws are going to make a difference?
Good point, Gypsy. Also, to Azrancher's point, I have shot an AK that was purchased during the assault weapons ban, and I can assure you that it shot just as fast and comfortably as my post-ban AK (WASR 10/63 GP). Having a pistol grip or a standard rifle stock makes absolutely no difference.
Less ammo in the magazine means better feed to bolt and less jamming.
10 round magazine jam less
If I want 30 rounds DUCT TAPE 3 MAGAZINES TOGETHER.
We did this all the time in the military...
Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Hey catherine-2036243 "NRA wack jobs"? the only wack job is you lady because when someone busts in your house you wont be able to defend yourself LMAO AHAHAHAHAH sorry for your damn luck. What makes you think we dont have enough ammo to last all year and protect the people we care about and not worthless retards like you.
So you huddle in your living room with your finger on the trigger? Sounds like an exciting life. I'll continue enjoying mine while you continue living in fear.
A man or a woman with a gun has little to fear. Don't need your finger on the trigger all the time. Only when you want to put your attacker out of his misery.
Hmmm, I wonder if extreme paranoia about that home invasion that has so little chance of happening would qualify to enter an individual on the mental health registry that would prevent them from owning guns.
Jon-1321288
Probably not. But maybe the illogical fear of inanimate objects that the liberals have should.
Less ammo in the magazine means better feed to bolt and less jamming.
10 round magazine jam less
If I want 30 rounds DUCT TAPE 3 MAGAZINES TOGETHER.
We did this all the time in the military...
Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
People always forget that during the "Assault Weapons Ban", Columbine happened. And thank you backtobasics. I had instructors who would make people do pushups (or worse) for calling a magazine a "clip". But, without buzzwords, you can't scare people. And you morons who berate the NRA should take note of something. The NRA spends more time, money, and effort instructing children and adults in firearms safety and current laws than the US government. I defy anyone to show us where one of these killers was a member of the NRA, and where the NRA advocates the killing of innocents. By all means, ban "assault weapons". I'll go and purchase a nice Springfield Armory M1 have the ability to protect myself just as well.
Sorry Augustus, but people like Catherine don't know what they're talking about, and I don't mean that in a smart ass way...they just don't. So, all they know how to do is demonize something, anything, to try to put a quick fix on things. Put the blame on the NRA..that'll fix it. There is no quick fix. People like that have no interest in what the NRA really does. If they'd go to any NRA sanctioned event they'd see that it's all business and no hanky panky. All safety and no macho crap. But of course, that will never happen. They believe what the liberals say without question. It was amazing during the Clinton Assault Weapons hearings the amount of misinformation and out and out lies that were put out as "testimony". I was a hard Democrat up until that time when I saw my own party lie through their teeth. Most people had no idea about any of the weapons and accepted the BS as absolute gospel. And here we are again. Why is it that when weapons were available everywhere, like when I was growing up in the 50's, there were no mass shootings? You could buy a gun nearly anywhere, "assault rifles" ie army issue 30 caliber carbines that only came with 20 or 30 round mags were everywhere for $100 and nobody was shooting up schools with them? Reckon it might be our society instead of guns that are causing all this mayhem? Video games, bad parenting, a gov't that gives you everything without working for it.....I don't know, they don't either....let's just ban stuff and solve the problem. Sheer ignorance.
I read the statement by Wayne LaPierre with interest. It's a good start, but not enough. I'm tired of these half way measures. How would a guard at a school with a handgun possibly stop someone armed with automatic weapons? What we really need is for all schools to have guards in every classroom, armed with superior weapons -- perhaps machine guns and rocket-propelled granades. Also, if we really want to properly protect our kids, we should teach them to shoot, arm them, and dress them with flack jackets. As we all know, the only way for good guys to prevail against bad guys with guns is to have superior fire power. Let's not interfere with our God-given Second Amendment Rights to own any weapon we choose. And let's not forget what the NRA and gun lobby has taught us: "Chemical weapons and nuclear bombs don't kill people. PEOPLE kill people.
I had armed guards and metal detectors in my High School. And during the year, three fellow students were shot or caught with guns in the classroom. That worked great.
I had armed guards and metal detectors in my High School and during the year there three fellow students were caught at the door. That worked great!
mlangwel, chuckW, what school did you attend?
Catherine, thanks for proving my point!
Had this been a terriorist attack on the school children, the focus would have been on the terriorist and how to prevent such attacks, not a focus on guns. Even some of the ideas floated about only 10 bullet clips would not have prevented such a tragedy. A pistol with 3 -10 bullet clips would have done the same thing. It's time people start doing meaningful things that will reduce incidents like this....not just DOING SOMETHING for political reasons or an agenda. Real background checks for all purchases, waiting periods, perhaps a national mental health registry (like those for felons), requirement under criminal penalty that high capacity type weapons be kept under lock and key. And yes some of these guns do have a hunting use, the one mentioned is commonly used for varmit and coyote control in the West.
Those mean very little til we make civilian ownership of high-capacity magazines illegal... BTW you all know that the House just undid the act that allows Americans due process under federal detainment? That now the gov can detain you without reason indefinitely? Let's say---that the assault weapons ban comes back, just for debate's sake. You have several of the things and the FBI finds out and somes to collect them. You refuse, stating your 2nd Amendment rights. Then it's you, your spouse and your children in a shootout with FBI, SWAT teams and dozens of higlhy trained people including snipers.. What's more important--your high cap mags or your kids? Just remember, yeah states seceded in 1861--and look what happened to THEM. Learn from history. Fight to save our children. We're not giving up all our guns, just the ones we don't need--by which I mean ANYTHING where you can cap of more than 10 shots w/o a reload. Deer aren't shooting back yet--and bullets make that meat taste AWFUL. I've tried it.
Chris: What makes you think owners of military hardware wouldn't be just as highly trained? The US government has armed many terrorists and criminals; we also have porous borders. Homeland Security was invented to prevent terrorist attacks at targets like schools, theaters, events, and large gatherings. Billions of dollars spent for decades, how is that working out? Feel safe? I think the government owes its people the same type of weapons they gave their enemies. Machine guns, tanks, artillery, and many other things have been in the hands of private citizens for longer than a hundred years. The first civil war was lost because they couldn't by stuff on eBay, or get it from China. Now there are many arms dealers all over the world.
I wonder how much training Adam Lanza had?
I don't know, maybe he watched a 24 hour marathon of violent movies and cartoons then he got pissed off when mom said no more video games. Lots of information their to learn, no it isn't real but you don't know if he wasn't smoking or taking something either.
"Real background checks for all purchases, waiting periods, perhaps a national mental health registry (like those for felons), requirement under criminal penalty that high capacity type weapons be kept under lock and key"
Your ideas have been tried, and none of them reduced the rate of violent crime.
Probably because criminals don't follow laws, so they wouldn't wait, wouldn't do a background check, wouldn't be on a registry...
"make civilian ownership of high-capacity magazines illegal"
Again, how do you get criminals to turn in their standard-capacity factory-issue magazines?
The 10-round ones are stunted because of states like CA which thought a capacity restriction would reduce crime.
"fight for our children"
Mega clips are selling like hotcakes because this country is falling apart and it will be every man for himself thanks to Obamanomics. A two party system is destined for failure when it's deadlocked and our is.
Take a look at other countries with multiple parties----they don't do so well either!!
The difference with other countries is they're not full of gun nuts.
Other counties have their gun nuts and they kill people every day. So much for gun bans.
Gun bans don't work.
It worked from 1994 to 2004--the big event was Tim McVeigh's bomb. But mass shootings were down. Check statistics with somebody other than the NRA
Chris Humphrey,
Please do not forget Columbine on April 20, 1999. That one was very close to me (I lost some acquaintances in that act of lunacy by two of the students at that school), and I do not want those who died in that event to be insulted by our forgetting them.
Thank you.
Let's outlaw Islam, an arguably dangerous religion. What would be the objection? You have freedom of religion? Of course you do! But there are so many other religions to choose from, why do you need Islam?
Of course, such an argument is ludicrous. Freedom of religion means that you are free to practice whatever religion you wish, so long as you do no harm to others.
Firearms magazines are an integral part of the right to keep and bear arms (whether you find that right in the 2nd Amendment or in the natural right to self-defense). "Infringing" upon access to high-capacity magazines is an infringement upon the right itself. Rights are not monolithic blocks; they are composed of many small parts, each part being essential to the right. If this were not so, then it would be possible to remove so many of the parts, one by one (which is, of course, the anti-gun plan), that over time the right would be become useless, and therefore no right at all.
Police carry handguns to protect themselves, not the public. (Speaking generally here. There are rare instances in which police use their handguns to eliminate an immediate threat to the public, but usually they are only protecting themselves with their firearms. BTW, armed citizens kill twice as many bad guys every year as police, and they do it while shooting almost zero bystanders - a much better record than the police.) But police carry semi-auto handguns with high-capacity magazines. Why? Because they are the most efficient and conveniently-carried defensive arms available today. But some people want to take such weapons away from citizens. Are citizens' lives less valuable than that of policemen's lives? I'd argue against that. In fact, I'll argue that the lives of police are less valuable. Haven't the police taught you that if you're being robbed of valuables, you should surrender your valuables because your life is worth more than any property? Yet the police risk their lives to pursue thieves who have taken cigarettes and twenty dollars from convenience stores. Certainly, if they risk their lives for a few dollars, their lives must be worth less than ours (we who have been told our lives are worth more than mere property). Are you objecting to this reasoning and saying "All lives are equally valuable"? Good. Then why would you support efforts to prevent citizens from protecting themselves with the same weapons that police carry and use, if the citizens' lives are as valuable as those of the police?
Also, I should note that the police are more likely to have several police officers facing off with a single subject. In a civilian confrontation, an armed citizen is as likely as the police to face a perp one-on-one, but more likely than the police to face more than one perp at a time. It could be argued that the armed citizen has more need for high-capacity handgun magazines than the police, because the police can easily call more guns to the scene, when the armed citizen can only rely on himself. (The citizen should call 911 and wait for help? Hardly. Most violent encounters are over in seconds. The police are often called "first responders." They are not. The "first responder" at any incident is the intended crime victim. The principle at the Sandy Hook school was the "first responder." Unfortunately, she was not armed.)
UN-BAN Marijuana and you wont have to ban guns. It's been the forbidden fruit that's got us where we are today, starting with the apple in the garden of Eden.
It appears that we in America just love to kill each other.
So why worry about terrorists? we are better at it----the attitude in this country is pro hunting and that includes each other!!------we have a mental health crisis---it is not 'the end of the world we need to worry about--it is our neighbors!!'
Using NRA logic, the "lame stream media" showing McDonald's commercials are responsible for the obesity epidemic in America.
There's a fair amount of truth to that statement!
You got it right Kevin. Bribe kids to eat your fattyass foods with toys. Ban McDonald's.
Another genius. You never know when the Hamburglar is going to waste 20 students and six professional educators.
Instead of a background check, perhaps we should have an education check before purchasing a weapon.
True, Obesity and its related effects kill a lot of people each year. The numbers must be staggering. Where is the President, Boxer, Reid, Feinstein and Bloomberg? I don't see them standing in their pulpit.
the last time i saw a clip used was on an m1 garand. typical lib ignorant article.
lol... I saw some retard on the news say "multi magazine clip", when talking about high-capacity magazines. Wtf is that supposed to mean?
Also, for the record, I am liberal on pretty much every issue except for firearms. There are plenty of "liberals" who are pro-gun. So, to use the terms "liberal" and "conservative" really is not appropriate. The only purpose they serve is to divide us into an us versus them mentality. The reality is that very few people actually fit into the stereotypes that the media feeds us.
So go back to faux news where they tell you exactly what you want to hear, regardless of the facts.
How does your comment, sam, have anything to do with what either I or Uncle Henry said? Please indulge me.
Easy solution, make this about mental health.
Stock piling weapons and ammo is akin to hoarding. So let's get some new mental health guidelines out there so we can legally remove the weapons from these hoarders homes. It's crazy people doing all this shooting, correct? So let's do something about it. I think 2 guns and 1000 rounds for every human in the home about covers what would be considered hoarding and what would be considered sane.
How did you arrive at those numbers? Who put you in charge of mental health guidlines? What are your qualifications...watching Dr. Phil? Have you done any research and how much schooling have you had? You do realize that psychoanalysts spend years in post graduate work? I can see you haven't...you can't even spell "stockpiling".
Doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result is the definition of crazy. Obama fits that definition.
Ryan, How do you distinguish between collectors and hoarders? I Reenact a number of time periods and have original or replica long arms of the British army to complete my portrayal of a British soldier. So I have my own personal "museum" of rifles and pistols. I don't think any person in the museum sciences field would label me a hoarder, but rather "a private collector". So I should be happy and support your proposal? Someone with depression and on medication... ok, I can see separating them from weapons, and monitoring their internet searching for other potentially dangerous searches, but that needs to be as part of documented diagnosis and a treatment plan, with milestones to determine when the person is healthy again.
It's going to take a lot of 22 bullets to shoot down all the Drones coming to spy on us.
Forget about how many 22 bullets to shoot down a drone......It's easy, find a computer hacker.
Maybe the 'end of the world' wouldn't be such a bad idea!!----------Fresh start!!
If the end of the world is coming.....you should worry about hiding all the women first because i ain't going out with my hand around my dick.
Wow! Too heavenly to do any earthly good... Why even say that?
"I am fully convinced that this Earth is an Interplanetary Lunatic Asylum"--(George Bernard Shaw)
i really do not know what they are talking about when they say high capacity clips, the largest clip i know of is a 8 round clip and it is used in the ww2 korean war era m1's.
if the liberal left is going to critize somthing then i suggest that they know what they are talking about, a clip is what holds rounds together and the device inside the weapon pushes them up so they can be fed into the chamber, a magazine on the other hand has a spring and follower built into it that pushes the rounds up so they can be chambered.
the least you can do is be smart enough to get the termology correct
You are so right---"terminology is of prime importance when you are killing someone!!"
My SKS uses a 10 round stripper clip. Or I can throw the rounds in individually.
@ Heaveto... The time for terminology is when laws are being crafted and voted on, so, yes. Getting it right DOES count then. Why on earth would you think terminology mattered to a nutjob int he process of committing murder? Either you are gormless or you are a troll.
First assault weapons, high capacity mags, what's next call for a ban on all semi-auto handguns? No way I'm giving up my glock as a single female even with a big dog an alarm system.
Time to stock up on clips and ammo. Need to be prepared for Obamas Storm Troopers when he moves to disarm America. And don't for a minute think that he isn't arrogant enough to try.
When they come to take your guns, they aren't going to give you the chance to open fire upon them. Get that simple idea out of your head cowboy. If they intend to disarm Americans, they will use a bioweapon to force everyone to go to the FEMA camps to get the vaccine or just die. You'll have to leave your guns at home, or stay home and die with them. Then they'll happily pry them out of your cold dead, stupid, hands.
Fantasize much?
Easy Paul....by any chance you are a member of the Doomsday Prep???
The notion that you are going to get in a shoot out with the people that have come to take your guns away, and win that fight unscathed, is the silly fantasy. That isn't how they are going to get your guns, if they ever even want them from you.
First you're the ones who are paranoid about losing your guns, then you fantasize a dimwitted scenario where you win the fire fight to keep your guns, and you reject the highly likely to be successfully employed methodology for confiscating your guns, at no risk to the confiscators. Who is the one kidding themselves here?
They don't need to take your guns when they are perfectly willing to take your life. Focus on that reality. Did a gun help anybody in the Twin towers on 9/11/2001. Would a gun have stopped WTC#7 from being imploded? You've let "the government " get away with mass murder, by not DEMANDING any real investigation of 9/11, and you think the same people aren't going to use a bioweapon against you?
Let them keep using the term "clip"... it just makes it that much easier to weed out which individuals have any clue what they are talking about. I haven't used a clip in my AR or Glocks EVER so ban all the high capacity clips you would like! And as the story read, my PMAGs will last somewhat indefinately if kept out of the sun so nothing to see there. What the libs keep overlooking is that a large number of law enforcement personnel are also personal firearms owners and would also not be compliant in trying to go door to door and collect firearms. I am a Desert Storm vet, retired AF, NRA and POST trained in small arms tactics and been a CCW carrier for going on 9 years now. I own all the same weapons that these whackos have used in the past few years to perpetrate these mass killings in gun free zones and not once has my weapons taken themselves out of thier safe, loaded themselves, transported themselves to a location and pulled thier own triggers. So my weapons nor myself are not the hazard to be concerned with....
RichinCO - well said.
BTW - Thank you for your service. America owes its freedom to even have this discussion to the service that you and the many other service members have given.
Rich,
One thing about gun-control libs (not all libs are for gun control), is that all they know about guns are that they will kill people. That's it! They kill people. They have no clue about the benefits of guns or why American founders saw the need to give the people the RIGHT to bear arms. Gun-control advocates should try to foresee what banning guns would do. Talk about a WAR! That SHOULD and WOULD cause a major war!
Great comment! I am with you. Let them ban all the clips they want. One thing is for sure though, all of us pro gun people need to stop feeding the fire by calling some of our rifles "assault rifles", or "military style rifles". The word "assault" is an action, not the name or category of a rifle or magazine. I too am a retired veteran with over 20 years of service. Our country is not invulnerable to civil war and/or collapse. We must never give up the fight for our rights. The current gun laws work and I cannot understand the irrational comments made against our way of life. It is very apparent that most of these protesters are people who do not venture far from their couch and TV. I am a loving father and provider. I keep my household in order. I have never been divorced and very few of my friends and family have been divorced. My children are successful and my entire family carry concealed 24/7.
We do not support businesses that are anti-gun. In our very large circle of friends and family, we all attend professional training classes to learn how to properly employ our guns (legally). First and foremost, we will attemp to egress from a busy area under attack before we start shooting. I have carried concealed for over 35 years now, and there has only been one occasion where I had to "go to the ready" position. Why am I so lucky? I/we stay clear of areas that are potential targets and if we enter a congested building (such as a movie theater) we position ourselves to our advantage.
I work in a fortune 500 company and many of my work comrades carry concealed and are professionally trained in using their choice of guns.